Obama Wins Iowa!
Well, it was a fun election season kids. I guess we can get back to business now. If we learned anything from last night's photo finish in Iowa, it's that we've got another four years of Obama to look forward to. Could be worse, I guess.
In a desperate bid to remain even a little relevant, Iowa GOP commissioners managed to scare up eight last minute ballots for Romney to put him on top of the Jesus-Rode-Dinosaurs guy. I have to admit I laughed out loud a little at the video of Romney's Iowa team high-fiving after the result was announced. It's the political equivalent of the Broncos backing into the playoffs by losing to the Chiefs.
The clear winner last night was Obama. The Republican party is in a state of disarray that it hasn't seen since Bush I got his ass kicked in 1992. If you need proof, look no further than Democratic uber-operative James Carville saying it was the most satisfying Iowa result he'd ever seen. The GOP is obviously not ready for prime time.
Early word is that Rick Perry is out and Michelle Bachman isn't far behind, which is kind of a shame because they'll take a little of the freakshow cred with them. I personally would rather see all the candidates (save Ron Paul, of course) arrive at the finish line in a bloody pulp after having savaged one another for the better part of a year.
The Romney fans in the crowd better enjoy this while it lasts, because this will probably be the last thing he wins. Newt Gingrich's sociopathic ego will never allow him to admit that he finished a dismal 4th because of his own unelectability, and he's already focusing his wrath on Romney. You can expect some truly heinous shit to be revealed about Romney courtesy of Newt. Newt is gonna go scorched earth, trust me. He knows he can't win, but he's determined to take Romney down with him.
And then there's the Ron Paul crowd (myself among them). By garnering 23% of the vote, he more or less controls the GOP at this point. How can that be, you ask? His supporters will not support anyone else. The rest of the field is unacceptable to the majority of Ron Paul people, and come election day they just won't show up if he's not on the ballot. Obama wins in a landslide. I refer you again to 1992.
Hopefully Santorum's near win (well, let's face it, it was a win) was the last gasp of the religious fundamentalists who hijacked the party in the 1980's. Four more years of Obama might even be a good thing: he certainly has a knack for screwing up and I think we can reasonably expect that to accelerate over the next four years, plus it'll be another four years for old Republicans to die off and make room for the younger generation that actually knows WTF is going on and gives no sway to ridiculous non-issues like gay marriage.
I'm encouraged to avoid political discussions on the site and I make every effort to do so. But when a single party makes such an embarrassing statement like last night, I simply can't ignore it. You'd think after four years the GOP would have their game faces on.
And to think I spent five years as a registered Republican before Ross Perot showed me the light. I thought it was the other guys who were supposed to make you cringe.






Comments
I admire the zeal of Ron
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
Jimage wrote: I admire the
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
People don't trust Romney. Look at the exit polls. Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama. He didn't win on principle. He socialized health care in NH. That's not social, it's socialism.
Jimage wrote: I admire the
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
You are a close-minded douche. this is a self-fulfilling prophecy and is why we end up with a lemming like Romney at the forefront. "Centrists" like you are the reason the GOP is watered down and stands for nothing
Jimage wrote: I admire the
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
blah blah blah unelectable.........you sound like a broken record of the MSM. If I wanted to hear that bullshit I'll just turn on Fox.
wadtk wrote: Jimage wrote: I
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
People don't trust Romney. Look at the exit polls. Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama. He didn't win on principle. He socialized health care in NH. That's not social, it's socialism.
It was in MA. Also, like ObamaCare, hardly "socialist" if you actually look at what's in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_...
I don't like Romney.
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
duffmt6 wrote: wadtk
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
People don't trust Romney. Look at the exit polls. Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama. He didn't win on principle. He socialized health care in NH. That's not social, it's socialism.
It was in MA. Also, like ObamaCare, hardly "socialist" if you actually look at what's in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_...
I don't like Romney.
My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?
Stop bitching and get behind
Stop bitching and get behind Mitt Romney, so we can defeat Obama.
Brady4MVP wrote: Stop
Stop bitching and get behind Mitt Romney, so we can defeat Obama.
You seem to like Romney for the most nebulous reasons. Being a good businessman does not equate to being a good President, we aren't electing a CEO of America.
Romney created Obamacare before it was Obamacare. Now he thinks it's bad and wants to repeal it...why? Because that's what the GOP base wants to hear. The man has zero convictions of any sort.
However, I hear he went on some really cool trips when he was in HBS, so I take all of that back.
Check out my WSO Blog
Republicans primaries = a
Republicans primaries = a bunch fat blind kids attempting to rape a cat whilst being chased by a scared octogenarian homosexual in a priest costume.
wadtk wrote: Only reason why
Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama.
Revelation!
He didn't win on principle.
???????
You are a close-minded douche.
Compelling argument. Nice proofing.
you sound like a broken record of the MSM.
Again, good argument.
I would like to see a rational explanation about how RP could be elected in the general. Please, break it down for me. None of you has answered my question: Why the Paul-or-nothing attitude? How do you not prefer Romney to Obama?
Brady4MVP wrote: Stop
Stop bitching and get behind Mitt Romney, so we can defeat Obama.
Who's "we"? There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Obama. America is going to stick with the devil it knows, bubba.
wadtk wrote: duffmt6
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
People don't trust Romney. Look at the exit polls. Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama. He didn't win on principle. He socialized health care in NH. That's not social, it's socialism.
It was in MA. Also, like ObamaCare, hardly "socialist" if you actually look at what's in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_...
I don't like Romney.
My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?
You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!
Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?
You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
I fail to see how Romney
I fail to see how Romney winning the Iowa Caucus (and eventually the nomination) is a clear victory for Obama. Romney always had the most money and was going to be the nomination since the start. Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorium are paving the way for an unscathed nomination. This is a carefully orchestrated effort by the Republicans.
I also don't understand how people cannot see the logic behind saying Ron Paul will not get the popular vote. It is as simple as looking at demographics and past voting behavior. Libertarianism is wonderful, but something that benefits those who are self reliant or educated. This idea that people barely hanging on give a shit about freedom or some other intangible, while they can't pay their electric is beyond me.
Romney is a flip flopper huh. So that is what makes him bad? I mean people hate the Tea Party for being ideologues and hard liners, but when someone can change their mind or side with opposition this is a fault?
Whatever. Romney is not perfect, but he is preferable to Obama IMO. Paul would be the best, but he can have more power not being President. He has rejuvenated the Libertarian movement and with his son can continue to do so.
Romney is the best candidate to defeat Obama. And I pray he does so.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Jimage wrote: None of you has
None of you has answered my question: Why the Paul-or-nothing attitude?
Because unless you love Obama, Ron Paul is the only other choice. All the other candidates are mirror images (albeit funhouse mirror images in some cases) of the guy in the White House. They're all corporate shills who won't make any meaningful change.
And that's fine if you're happy with the status quo. Some of us aren't. And we'd sooner see the current clown continue his destructive trajectory than waste our vote on a Republican stuffed suit who is only going to do the same (but by God the gays won't get married!).
duffmt6 wrote: wadtk
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
People don't trust Romney. Look at the exit polls. Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama. He didn't win on principle. He socialized health care in NH. That's not social, it's socialism.
It was in MA. Also, like ObamaCare, hardly "socialist" if you actually look at what's in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_...
I don't like Romney.
My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?
You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!
Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?
You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)
Oh man, Duff Toast, I was easing off you bro, but you had to open your mouth again.
All the taxes you mentioned are avoidable. You are not forced to pay anything. Health Insurance is FORCED on you. The government has no right to force me to insure myself. That is clearly a step toward socialism as is many of the things the government does.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
duffmt6 wrote: wadtk
wadtk wrote: duffmt6
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
Duff, remember- the austrian
TheKing wrote: Brady4MVP
ANT wrote: duffmt6
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
income tax? Estate taxes?
wadtk wrote: I can choose not
Brady4MVP wrote: TheKing
Check out my WSO Blog
Jimage wrote: wadtk wrote: I
GSElevator: "Romney looks
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
wadtk wrote: I can choose not
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
This thread worries me more
double post
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
TheKing wrote: Brady4MVP
duffmt6 wrote: wadtk
Brady: I agree 100% that
Check out my WSO Blog
I'm not fan of Obama but what
RomneyCare is very different
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Romney will sign what
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
The problem with the United
Third prize is you're fired.
I really have to contest all
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
How much more productive
My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.
Looks like I had it
KarateBoy wrote: but what if
ANT wrote: RomneyCare is very
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
ANT wrote: Congress has the
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
Romney can't beat Obama 1)
From 1850-1960, American
My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.
Problem with this country is
aempirei wrote: From
So what you're saying is we
My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.
Edmundo Braverman
"Kept feeding him dollars 'till it all started to make cents."
There is one candidate I
Third prize is you're fired.
dazedmonk wrote: Romney can't
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Brady4MVP wrote: Stop
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P